Late off the mark
Dec. 14th, 2010 03:42 pmOh, Jesus Frakking Christ!
If you care to click through the link above (your choice; I can't say as it points to anything very pleasant) you will find Donald Douglas writing about Elizabeth Edwards, and specifically about her farewell message at Facebook.
Elizabeth Edwards left a last, farewell message on Facebook; a message of remarkable courage and grace, a message that makes every decent human being remember her with respect.
It. Is. Not. About. You.
She was not in any way obligated to use her dying words to endorse your religion. Your expectation that she should consider the feelings of the religious--and your particular brand of religion at that--first at a time like this shows a degree of self-centeredness that would be ugly in a kindergarten and is utterly out of place among adults. You use this sad time to express your feelings of bigotry and entitlement.
You should be ashamed. And your coreligionists should be ashamed of you.
And you, David Gibson. Elizabeth Edwards does not need your "charitable" reinterpretation of her remarks to make them more religious. Your attempts at "rehabilitation" are an insult to a remarkable human being who is more, not less, worthy of admiration where she refrains from the treacle of religious sentiment.
Crawl back under your respective rocks and stay there.
Me.
If you care to click through the link above (your choice; I can't say as it points to anything very pleasant) you will find Donald Douglas writing about Elizabeth Edwards, and specifically about her farewell message at Facebook.
Still, at her death bed and giving what most folks are calling a final goodbye, Elizabeth Edwards couldn't find it somewhere down deep to ask for His blessings as she prepares for the hereafter? I guess that nihilism I've been discussing reaches up higher into the hard-left precincts than I thought.Dear Donald Douglas,
Elizabeth Edwards left a last, farewell message on Facebook; a message of remarkable courage and grace, a message that makes every decent human being remember her with respect.
It. Is. Not. About. You.
She was not in any way obligated to use her dying words to endorse your religion. Your expectation that she should consider the feelings of the religious--and your particular brand of religion at that--first at a time like this shows a degree of self-centeredness that would be ugly in a kindergarten and is utterly out of place among adults. You use this sad time to express your feelings of bigotry and entitlement.
You should be ashamed. And your coreligionists should be ashamed of you.
And you, David Gibson. Elizabeth Edwards does not need your "charitable" reinterpretation of her remarks to make them more religious. Your attempts at "rehabilitation" are an insult to a remarkable human being who is more, not less, worthy of admiration where she refrains from the treacle of religious sentiment.
Crawl back under your respective rocks and stay there.
Me.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-16 07:19 pm (UTC)I was heartened to see that the majority of the comments to that post are critical, and most of them manage to not get obscene (usually that sort of thing brings out the nut-jobs on both sides). There is hope for humanity still.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-23 01:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 09:25 pm (UTC)I went to the page -- scrolled through a bunch of comments, many in synch with your and my POV -- and then clicked on "add comment" while framing something mentally that might or might not have included "schmuck".
"NEW COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DISABLED FOR THIS POST BY A BLOG ADMINISTRATOR."
Just as well.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-15 03:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 09:28 pm (UTC)The arrogance is astounding. Never mind the fact that, for all he knows, Ms. Edwards did have that private conversation with her God, and decided not to share it with everybody; never mind that that conversation, if any, was between her and her God, if any. Just... the idea that Douglas feels she needed to publicly "ask for His blessings as she prepares for the hereafter" lets us know entirely what Douglas thinks of her, her life, and his own importance as a spokesman for God.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 10:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-15 03:57 pm (UTC)I hope he chokes.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-15 04:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 11:06 pm (UTC)Shame on those who feel the need to reinterpret those words. We follow those guidelines because they are the RIGHT THING TO DO. No rewards, just doing the right thing. What horrible thing to suly that.
I hope I can approach death with such grace.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-15 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 11:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-15 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-15 05:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-20 03:44 am (UTC)I don't think this reading is any more or less admirable than the paraphrase you gave — both seem pretty darn pernicious to me — but I didn't get the impression that he meant to say what you say he said.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-21 02:20 am (UTC)I suppose this is possible, and agree it is equally pernicious.
However, as several people have pointed out, he had no reason to think she was not religious, except her failure to use her public position, including her dying words, to promote his vision of God.
It is not as if her only possible method of communication with God was newspaper interviews and her last Facebook message.
There is even an injunction in the bible saying you shouldn't pray in public; people do that to win other people's admiration for their piety, not to communicate with God. Now I get that he's probably a "cafeteria Christian"--I guess people pretty much have to be, or go insane from the conflicting rules. But surely he's *aware* of this rule, and that some Christians follow it? And that therefore a lack of penchant for public prayer doesn't reliably indicate a lack of belief.
Which leaves him reproaching her for... not promoting his particular religion.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-20 04:02 am (UTC)My concept of G!d is broad enough to embrace those words, to recognize them as the words of a kindred heart regardless of whether or not we would use the same word to name that in which we place our faith. That's not just a matter of my idea of the divine being vague — something can be flexible without being shapeless or mushy, and I try to be so (in both body and mind) as much as I can.
Elizabeth Edwards wasn't a poster theist or a poster atheist, she was an exemplary thoughtful and questioning person, like many people trying to weave together faith and reason in the face of what life throws at them. As far as I know, the point of religious beliefs about death is to help people prepare to die with dignity and a sense of hope. Elizabeth Edwards did that — her faith seemed to be working just fine.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-21 02:23 am (UTC)I would say "her faith, or whatever she was using in place of faith, seemed to be working just fine." But yeah. I see something fine and moving and courageous in her words, and if Douglas can't see it, I pity the poor fool.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-21 03:25 am (UTC)She did, in fact, use the word "faith" herself. I think in this particular context it might be more useful to understand it in the sense of "trust", rather than "belief".
no subject
Date: 2010-12-21 09:04 pm (UTC)Happy Solstice!